= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on The Number Choosing Game: Against the existence of perfect theoretical rationality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (151)
I actually don't believe that perfect rationality does exist - but in this case, I think the whole concept of "perfect" is flawed for this problem. You can use the same argument to prove that there's no perfect cartographer, no perfect shotputter, no perfect (insert anything where you're trying to get as close as you can to a number without touching it).
As I said, I don't think it's proving anything special about rationality - it's just that this a problem taht we don't have good language to discuss.
"You can use the same argument to prove that there's no perfect cartographer, no perfect shotputter, no perfect (insert anything where you're trying to get as close as you can to a number without touching it)." - Why is that a problem? I don't think that I am proving too much. Do you have an argument that a perfect shotputter or perfect cartographer does exist?
"As I said, I don't think it's proving anything special about rationality" - I claim that if you surveyed the members of Less Wrong, at least 20% would claim that perfect theoretical rationality exists (my guess for actual percentage would be 50%). I maintain that in light of these results, this position isn't viable.
"We don't have good language to discuss." - Could you clarify what the problem with language is?
What is perfect rationality in the context of an unbounded utility function?
Consider the case where utility approaches 100. The utility function isn't bounded, so the issue is something else.
It's still some weird definitions of perfection when you're dealing with infinities or infinitesimals.
Maybe it is weird, but nothing that can fairly be called perfection exists in this scenario, even if this isn't a fair demand.